1. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress....but that amendment has been made a state law, as well.....
a. "The incorporation of the Bill of Rights(or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to 1925, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under theincorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments."Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

True everywhere in the nation......

....well, almost everywhere.

2. "New York’s ‘shut up’ rule

3. Keep quiet. That’s the message being sent by New York State Board of Elections, which disregarded the First Amendment to enact new “emergency regulations” on political speech ....

4. Intended to regulate spending by independent groups during campaign season, the regulations are so expansive that almost anyone, citizen or organization, hoping to have their say on any issue could find themselves in bureaucratic dire straits.

5. Imagine you hear a radio ad where your state representative — let’s call him Fred — claims to oppose higher taxes. But you know that Fred voted three times for higher taxes.

... you print up 500 flyers with a picture of Fred, a copy of his voting record on taxes and a brief statement about how you think your neighbors should know the truth.

....for performing your civic duty and educating the public about a dishonest politician, the New York State Board of Elections could now fine you at least $1,000.

a. Why? Because you failed to register as a political committee, complete the appropriate paperwork for filing an “independent expenditure,” list your donors and your treasurer and provide copies of your flyer to the board for its stamp of approval.

6. .... just the tip of the regulatory iceberg. These new rules give the board unprecedented say in determining if speech is supporting or opposing a candidate.

7. Is an ad for a charity that supports war veterans advocating for a candidate who is also a war vet? Is an AARP pamphlet opposing higher prescription-drug prices under ObamaCare opposing every candidate who supports New York’s state-run insurance marketplace?

What about billboards for a local gun show that say, “Support the Second Amendment” — are those attack ads against all pro-gun control candidates?

a. Under the new regulations, these decisions are left entirely to the discretion of the four unelected commissioners on the Board of Elections. The board has full discretion to decide whose ads are acceptable and who to throw the book at.

b. As the recent IRS scandal has made abundantly clear, government bureaucrats can’t fairly assess what groups have the right to speak.

8. Ultimately, the courts will quash the rules, as they have New York’s past efforts to squelch independent political speech.
But in the meantime, ... these regulations will prevent individuals and organizations from delivering their message to the public.

9. The end result? Politicians can worry less about taking actions that might offend their constituents, because fewer amateurs will be able to speak out ....

10. At the Board of Elections, however, those in power [and we are speaking of Liberals/Democrats] clearly aren’t interested in hearing from those speaking the truth."New York’s ‘shut up’ rule | New York Post

It cannot be over-emphasized: the Constitution, the law of the land, stated that there can be "...no law.... or abridging the freedom of speech..."

There is no 'maybe' in there.

Earlier, perhaps before they grew in strength and confidence, modern Liberals were content with simply pretending to misunderstand the language, and to bend and twist it to their ends.

Today, they have convinced many that judges have some ability to translate the language of the Constitution so that it "becomes intelligible."

What nonsense.

The United States Constitution was written in the commonly spoken tongue of the nation, with only the variations that time has provided.

That's right, if one is fluent in English, one can understand the Constitution.

Originalists are those who give credence to the actual language of the Constitution, with the usage in effect at the time it was written.

As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’
"Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate," by Steven G. Calabresi and Antonin Scalia

Feeling strong enough to do so, the modern Liberal simply finds ways to 'shut up' opposing voices.
What has happened to this nation?

As one can see in the OP, Liberals/Democrats would like nothing better than to silence opposition voice.

Notice how different that view is from this:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

There is no wiggle room. In the only way to alter that, short of an amendment, is tyranny.

Then, there is this:

"FEATURE-As churches get political, U.S. IRS stays quiet
.... pulpit pleading could endanger his church's tax-exempt status by violating IRS rules for a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. A charity can take a position on policy issues but cannot act "on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office." To cross that line puts the $7 million mega-church's tax break at risk.
When the target is a church, mosque or synagogue, enforcement puts two fundamental American values at odds: freedom of speech and the separation of church and state. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8HED5Z20120621

Using the IRS to stifle the speech of religious groups......and we have seen same with respect to political groups.

"...no laws....abridging...."

"How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
Samuel Adams

The Constitution... . "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,..."

Where is the amendment that says "except sometimes....'

"In her 1993 article "Regulation of Hate Speech and Pornography After R.A.V," for the University of Chicago Law Review, [Supreme Court Justice] Kagan writes:

"I take it as a given that we live in a society marred by racial and gender inequality, that certain forms of speech perpetuate and promote this inequality, and that the uncoerced disappearance of such speech would be cause for great elation."

In a 1996 paper, "Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine," Kagan argued it may be proper to suppress speech because it is offensive to society or to the government.

..... asserted First Amendment doctrine is comprised of "motives and ... actions infested with them" and she goes so far as to claim that "First Amendment law is best understood and most readily explained as a kind of motive-hunting."

Kagan's name was also on a brief, United States V. Stevens, dug up by the Washington Examiner, stating: "Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs."

If the government doesn't like what you say, Elena Kagan believes it is the duty of courts to tell you to shut up. If some pantywaist is offended by what you say, Elena Kagan believes your words can be "disappeared".
WyBlog -- Elena Kagan's America: some speech can be "disappeared"The Daley Gator | Elena Kagan Radical anti-gun nut?

It cannot be over-emphasized: the Constitution, the law of the land, stated that there can be "...no law.... or abridging the freedom of speech..."

There is no 'maybe' in there.

Earlier, perhaps before they grew in strength and confidence, modern Liberals were content with simply pretending to misunderstand the language, and to bend and twist it to their ends.

Today, they have convinced many that judges have some ability to translate the language of the Constitution so that it "becomes intelligible."

What nonsense.

The United States Constitution was written in the commonly spoken tongue of the nation, with only the variations that time has provided.

That's right, if one is fluent in English, one can understand the Constitution.

Originalists are those who give credence to the actual language of the Constitution, with the usage in effect at the time it was written.

As a basis for understanding the Commerce Clause, Professor Barnett examined over 1500 times the word ‘commerce’ appeared in the Philadelphia Gazette between 1715 and 1800. In none of these was the term used to apply more broadly than the meaning identified by Justice Thomas in his concurring opinion in ‘Lopez,’ in which he maintained that the word ‘commerce’ refers to the trade and exchange of goods, and that process, including transportation of same. A common trilogy was ‘agriculture, manufacturing and commerce.’

For an originalist, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’
"Originalism: A Quarter-Century of Debate," by Steven G. Calabresi and Antonin Scalia

Feeling strong enough to do so, the modern Liberal simply finds ways to 'shut up' opposing voices.
What has happened to this nation?

Very disturbing news report. You are right. This was never the plan from the beginning. America is in serious trouble.